Chapter 15

(1) Are your normal schools at the present time equipt to give adequate preparation to prospective high school teachers?

(2) If you think they are not, would it be wise to add to their present equipment such facilities as would enable them to give such preparation, or can that work be better done in some other way?

REPLIES FROM STATE SUPERINTENDENTS

To question (1). Thirty-eight replies were received, of which twenty-nine were negative and nine affirmative. Of the nine, however, only one came from a state in which normal school facilities are at all superior to what may be termed a fair average, and in that state these facilities are found in only one of the five normal schools, whereas, in five of the nine, these facilities are inferior to what may be termed a fair average. In two of the nine, tho the state superintendents gave affirmative answers, the consensus of opinion of the normal school principals was negative. In a word, the nine affirmative replies indicate individual opinions, and result from a limited perspective.

To question (2). Twenty-nine replies were received, of which fifteen were specifically negative, five specifically affirmative, and nine implied a misunderstanding of the question. But nearly all of the nine, as well as the fifteen, stated definitely or clearly implied that such work should be done in the colleges and universities.

REPLIES FROM NORMAL SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

To question (1). Twenty-eight replies were received, of which twenty were negative, and eight affirmative. Of the eight, three were from states having but one normal school each, and perhaps, therefore, admittedly strong; two from states having each one school much superior to the others of the same state, and referring specifically to that school. Of the remaining three, one was from a new state in the Northwest, one from a Southern state, and one stated that only in some branches was the equipment sufficient.

To question (2). Twenty replies were received, of which sixteen were negative, and four affirmative. Of the four, not one said that all should be so equipt. Each suggested that perhaps it would be well thus to extend the equipment of one school in a state.

REPLIES FROM CITY SUPERINTENDENTS

To question (1). Thirty replies were received, of which twenty-eight were negative, and two affirmative. The two were from a state in which is to be found a single normal school, and that, one of the best.

To question (2). Twenty-eight replies were received, of which twenty-six were negative, and two affirmative.

To be sure, correspondence upon this point was not sufficiently extended to be conclusive, but yet my correspondents were, in the main, leaders in their respective lines, and therefore represent the best educational thought and practise of the times. The summary speaks clearly and to the point, and to the same point, note, that the logic of events has already brought us. The work of the normal school should continue to be, as it has been from the beginning, devoted to preparation of teachers for the grades, while prospective teachers in the high schools should seek their preparation in the teachers colleges, under whatever specific names known, where the professional phases of the work will be as much emphasized, but be different, and be differently handled as befitting the different character of the work to be done, and where they can receive the broader academic outlook and equipment absolutely essential to an adequate handling of the larger and more difficult situation.

NOTE.--Since the appearance of the January number of _Education_, my attention has been called to the fact that in naming institutions giving early attention to the preparation of secondary teachers I omitted some that should have found a place in such an enumeration. It is true that several others might well have been mentioned. On page 286, line 5 (page 224, line 3 of this work), I might well have added the School of Pedagogy of New York University, also Clark, Stanford, California, and Teachers College, Columbia, and again, "and others." And on page 289, line 18 (page 228, line 18 of this work), I certainly should have added the School of Pedagogy of New York University and Clark University, possibly others, for the work is progressing rapidly. But it was the movement I had in mind rather than the specific contributions of various institutions. The omissions were not born of any desire to withhold from any institution the credit that it deserves.

Since this matter is again open, let me add an interesting fact in regard to the New York University School of Pedagogy, just mentioned. If I mistake not, we have here the first real "teachers college," that is, the first instance in which we see a "Department of Education," having merely equal standing with other departments in a university, become, thru definite action of that university's governing body, "a professional school of equal rank with the other professional schools of the University." This change was made on March 3, 1890. Judging by results, it has been amply justified. The institution is doing a large and splendid work.--THE AUTHOR.

X

CREDIT FOR QUALITY IN SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION

_From the "Educational Review," March, 1909, and the "Western Journal of Education" (now the "American Schoolmaster"), May, 1909_

In the _Educational Review_ for May, 1908, Mr. W. B. Secor had an article under the caption, "Credit for Quality in the Secondary School." Mr. Secor says, in his opening paragraph, "The present system of giving credit towards graduation in use in the secondary school, takes account mainly of the amount of work done.... The student who barely passes his work gets just the same amount of credit towards graduation as the one who passes high in the nineties. It is to be expected, then, that the student ... will reason something like this: I will be graduated if I pass my work in the seventies just the same as if I pass it in the nineties. What is the use of wasting time and effort in securing a high average?" He then suggests a system of marking which "would not only fix a minimum of quality, but would also recognize different degrees of quality by giving more credit toward graduation for high quality than for low," which system, he thinks, would also tend to "a strengthening of the intellectual life of the secondary school." Mr. Secor does not claim to be the originator of the idea, giving to President Hyde of Bowdoin that doubtful honor. He also refers to two articles in the _Educational Review_, one in the issue of April, 1905, written by Professor Thomas, of Columbia University, speaking of the system as just introduced into that institution, and the other in the issue of December, 1906, by Professor Kennedy, describing the system as then in use in the University of North Dakota. After these references have been cited, the system is discust from various points of view and its extension into the secondary field favored, tho, in his closing paragraph, Mr. Secor says, "Now the plan here proposed does not claim perfection. It may not even be a workable scheme when put to the test."

Mr. Secor's article is but one of many evidences that the experiment now being tried in a few of our higher institutions of learning, of attempting to estimate and adequately reward quality as well as quantity of work done by students, is attracting considerable attention. It is not at all strange that these experiments are attracting attention, for the idea is taking and its justice seemingly so apparent. Because of this interest I desire to examine some parts of Mr. Secor's article and in the process of that examination briefly discuss the so-called "Credit-for-quality" idea. I shall be materially aided in such discussion by my experience with the practical workings of the system in the University of North Dakota, and shall take the opportunity of letting the educational world know how the system is working and how it is being regarded in the institution in which it has been receiving its most extensive and thoro trial. For while the system did not originate here, it was here first put into operation, and for years an earnest, honest, heroic effort has been put forth in its behalf. I might say, parenthetically, that the details of the system Mr. Secor suggests are almost identically the ones that have been in use in this institution. They were found to be faulty, however, and have been materially changed.

I have read and re-read Mr. Secor's article with both interest and apprehension; with interest, because the "Credit-for-quality" idea has been engaging my thoughtful attention on both its practical and its theoretical sides for a considerable time; with apprehension, since the article seems to recommend the system for use in our secondary schools. I am sorry the recommendation has been made for the conclusions I have reached from my double study are very different from those being held by Mr. Secor. I seriously question the wisdom of extending the system at all, even when dealing with students of college rank, much more seriously, then, when applied to those of the secondary school who are four years younger, much less mature, and therefore less able to profit by the meritorious features and at the same time withstand the weakening influences attendant upon the system. Indeed, I think its adoption in the secondary schools would be nothing short of a calamity. Another reason why I feel impelled to speak is that reference is made in Mr. Secor's article to the working of the system in the institution with which I am connected as "highly satisfactory." In justice to the system itself and certainly in view of its suggested extension, that impression should not be allowed to go forth without modification or correction. I shall attempt, therefore, in this discussion, to do three things, tho I shall not try to separate the three spatially: (1) to discuss this marking system on its merits; (2) to report to the educational world our findings after an experience with it of five years, and (3) to urge against its extension into the secondary field.

Let me say, at the outset, that I have been connected with the University of North Dakota for three years--the last three of the five during which the system has been in use. I have had all the time from one hundred to one hundred twenty-five students. The grading has had to be done three times a year, since our school year, up to the present time, has been separated into three terms. Let me also make plain the fact that in all I say I speak upon my own responsibility, not for the institution nor for its faculty, tho it is true that nearly, if not quite, half the faculty hold practically the same views regarding the system.

It is true, as Mr. Secor says, that "the present system of giving credit towards graduation used in our secondary schools takes account mainly of the amount of work done." It passes upon quality, as he says, only "when it fixes a passing mark." It may also be true, as he takes for granted, that it would be desirable to give credit towards graduation for quality as well as for quantity, but of this I am very much in doubt, especially in dealing with secondary students. It does not sufficiently take into consideration the value of content, and that, it seems to me, is a factor that should not be disregarded. I think I value as highly as most men the discipline, or mental power, gained by close application; likewise, the habit of thoroness gained thru doing work well; but yet, in addition to those acquisitions, I confess that I also place high value upon knowledge as a possession. In other words, I want the student, both high school and college, to know something.

I will gladly admit, however, that it is very desirable to secure from the student quality as well as quantity. That, I am inclined to think, is the main thing that Mr. Secor is really after. He thinks the best way, or, at any rate, a very good way, to get it is thru the device of giving extra credit toward graduation for the higher grades of work. My experience with the system does not lead me to that conclusion. Interest in the subject matter itself is always essential to the doing of a high quality of work. And such interest in the subject matter of school studies is scarcely secured by anything so artificial as rewards smacking of the market. So far as it can not be secured directly, and resort must be made to artificial incentives to secure it, I think that incentives can be found much more in keeping with the general spirit and purpose of education than the constant appeal to the commercial value of the grades being obtained. The ordinary monthly report card sent to the home, on which the quality of work being done in the various subjects is indicated by "excellent," "good," "poor," etc., and even by the too common "per cent," is artificial stimulus enough. Every teacher knows what an incentive the report card can be made. To be sure, teachers differ greatly in their ability to use this card skilfully, but so used it can exert great power. Not long ago I discust this "Credit-for-quality" matter with a class of about thirty university students, mostly freshmen, and, somewhat to my surprise, I discovered that with the majority of them the chief reason for desiring the "A" and "B" (our marks for extra credit toward graduation) was not that they bore the extra credit, but that the descriptive terms "excellent" and "good" secure extra appreciation from the home when term standings are reported. This might not be true of any large percentage of university students, certainly would not be of the upper classes. Added years have made them shrewder. Under the influence of our system they have become keener to appreciate a "bargain." But it certainly would be true of a very large percentage of secondary students.

Considerable experience in the secondary schools leads me to doubt very much that the typical high school student reasons as Mr. Secor suggests in his first paragraph. Some do, of course, and so do some university students, but not the great body of either. Barring a small percentage, students as they run, in both high school and college, are an earnest lot of young people. They are in these institutions for a purpose. They are seeking, so far as their vision extends, well-developed manhood and womanhood. Their chief desire is not to slide thru. The two immediate ends normally in view are consciousness of progressive growth and appreciation from parent and teacher. How eager the majority are for this appreciation is well known to all. All the stimulus needed, in addition to what the subjects and the student's own desire furnish, the resourceful teacher has at hand wrapt up in his own personality. If any other stimulus is needed it can be given by a grading of diplomas as is now being done in many high schools and colleges. I hold that to add to the marks now in common use what may be called a monetary fringe is both unnecessary and really subversive of the true ends of the school work. As teachers we should seek to elevate ideals, not to lower them; to furnish right motives, not wrong ones; to place before the developing youth high incentives, not low ones.

Mr. Secor says, "the proposed plan is superior to the present system in that it gives a natural and not an artificial incentive to high scholarship." By what process of reasoning he reaches the conclusion that mere "marks and honors" are more "unnatural" and "artificial" than the same marks and honors with a commercial tag appended, I fail to see. The truth of the matter is, both are artificial. As incentives, both are low, but it stands to reason that the latter is much lower than the former. The best friends of the system here, in the University of North Dakota, admit that, as an incentive, it is both artificial and low. Mr. Secor goes on to say, "the system" (that is, the "Credit-for-quality") "puts a premium on thorough-going scholarship by enabling the student to come up for graduation without being forced to study so many subjects that he is not able to do any of them well." If our secondary school courses are so arranged as to force the student "to study so many subjects that he is not able to do any of them well," then something is radically wrong with the courses of study. But no evil can be remedied by introducing a greater. As a matter of fact, the application of the system does not lead to "thorough-going scholarship," at least not in the University of North Dakota where, for five years, an honest and faithful effort has been made to secure that result. In all our discussions I have never heard one of its friends make that claim for it, altho the charge has been repeatedly made that it is destructive of scholarship. The writer goes on to say, "he" (the student) "may substitute depth for breadth, if he so desires, and is encouraged to do so." Shall we, in the secondary schools, encourage depth? Yes, to be sure, relative depth, but not too much of it, and not then at the expense of breadth. For is not the high school student in that stage of his development when he responds to the sense of breadth rather than that of depth? We could not make of him a student of research if we should try. Let us not try.

In the last paragraph of the article referred to we find a hint of a lack of thoro conviction on the part of the writer himself. "It may not even be a workable scheme when put to the test," he says. Let me say that here, after five years' use, it is not proving to be satisfactorily "workable" even with students of college grade, and by a recent faculty action it has been entirely eliminated from our preparatory department.

This lack of conviction on the part of Mr. Secor calls to mind an interesting bit of history connected with the movement. As said before, it did not originate in the University of North Dakota. Dr. William DeWitt Hyde, President of Bowdoin College, is responsible for the suggestion. He sketched the plan in an _Outlook_ article of August 2nd, 1902, but evidently lacking the courage of his conviction did not introduce it into his own institution, preferring, seemingly, that the experiment be made elsewhere. This has been, from the start, very suggestive to me. I have some admiration for President Hyde's shrewdness. The University of North Dakota fell into the trap thus skilfully set. And it is easier to fall into a trap than to get out of it. As a matter of fact, the system is more on trial now, after five years' use, than ever before. Other institutions would do well to await further developments.

In attempting to analyze the situation at the University of North Dakota, let me again refer to Mr. Secor's article. He says, "The plan, with some modifications, is at present being used in the University of North Dakota and in Columbia University with results that are reported to be highly satisfactory." To substantiate his statement he refers, in a foot-note, to the articles in the _Educational Review_ from which he got his information. Now, the conclusion that Mr. Secor reaches from reading these articles is hardly warranted by the articles themselves. I fear he read too much between the lines. Let us see: Professor Thomas wrote of the Columbia system more than three years ago, and only a couple of months after its adoption; nor does he say anything as to its success,--in fact, he could not, for there was nothing to say. He merely explained the new system and gave voice to his expectations. The Columbia system may be proving "highly satisfactory," but surely that article does not say that it is. And when the other article is analyzed, the case is found to be somewhat similar. Professor Kennedy wrote on the system in the University of North Dakota nearly two years ago, fully two academic years, for the article appeared in December, 1906, before the close of the first term of the year 1906-'07. Now two years in the life of an experiment of this kind is a long time. And Professor Kennedy in writing his article, did not put the case as strongly as does Mr. Secor from reading it. All that he said of its successful working was: "We ... thus far can truthfully say it is working itself out in desirable results--in more and better work than under the old plan." From these data, given when they were, Mr. Secor is certainly not justified in saying that "the plan ... is at present being used in the University of North Dakota with results that are reported to be highly satisfactory."

Professor Kennedy's statement was his individual judgment at the time he wrote his article. A considerable number of his co-laborers would not then have agreed with him. He probably would not write even as strongly as that to-day. If he should, a still larger number would disagree. He might write as strongly of his own belief in the theoretical soundness of the system, but that is quite another matter. As a matter of fact, during the last two years the weaknesses of the system have become so much more apparent that many members of the faculty then favorable, or at least hopeful, have at last come to despair of ever being able to eliminate the objectionable features and strengthen the weak points sufficiently to warrant its retention.

Professor Kennedy's article goes into detail as to the adoption of the plan, and clearly states its various changes up to the date of his writing. In our efforts, since then, to "improve" and "strengthen" it, various other changes have been made so that, as a matter of fact, one who knew it in its early history only would hardly recognise it as planned for use next year (quite different in detail from that now in use) save in the fundamental principle. That remains the same; the institution desires to secure a better quality of work from its students; it also desires to enable the student of exceptional ability or unusual industry to cut short his period of undergraduate study. To accomplish these ends it continues to use its so-called "Credit-for-quality" system of marking. This is done, altho a large and steadily increasing number of the faculty members feel that it does not do the first and that it overdoes the second.

As to these ends: I think that no one on the faculty really feels that, on the whole, we are getting a better grade of work than should reasonably be expected without the system; or, to put it in another way, no one would be bold enough to say that our students are doing better work than the students of similar institutions that do not use the system. On the other hand, it is true that some who have come among us since the adoption of the system give the comparison the less favorable turn.